Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc. et al

Filing 155

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting 127 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Case No. 12-cv-05331-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

9
10

ACRONIS, INC., et al.,

Re: ECF No. 127

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) moves to file under

13
14

seal Exhibit 16 to Defendants-Counterclaimants Acronis, Inc., Acronis International GMBH and

15

OOO Acronis’ (“Acronis”) Responsive Claim Construction Brief, and to redact references within

16

the brief. ECF No. 124. Symantec has filed a declaration in support of sealing, and Acronis filed

17

a brief in opposition to sealing which was subsequently withdrawn. ECF Nos. 124-1, 142 & 154.

18

The Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

19

I.

20

LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local

21

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all

22

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v.

23

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation

24

marks omitted).

25

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that

26

(1) establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret

27

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

28

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill

1

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that

2

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a

3

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

4

With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong

5

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a

6

party seeks to file materials in connection with a dispositive motion, the presumption can be

7

overcome only if the party presents “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings

8

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

9

Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172 at 1178-79 (internal citation omitted). “The mere fact that the
production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179.
On the other hand, when a party seeks to file previously sealed discovery materials in

12
13

connection with a non-dispositive motion, the sealing party need not meet the ‘compelling

14

reasons’ standard “because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

15

underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In that

16

case, a party need only make a “particularized showing under the good cause standard of Rule

17

26(c)” to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal citation and internal quotation

18

marks omitted). A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or

19

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

26(c).
A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to

21
22

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.

23

2374 (U.S. 2012).

24

II.

25

ANALYSIS
Since the sealing request relates to a non-dispositive claim construction brief that is not

26

connected to a pending summary judgment motion, the “good cause” standard for sealing applies.

27

See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Symantec

28

has supported its request with a declaration attesting that the information it seeks to seal and redact
2

1

is testimony from a Symantec employee describing the functionality of Symantec’s products.

2

Declaration of Brianne M. Straka (“Straka Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 24-1. Straka also declares that

3

public disclosure of the information would subject Symantec to competitive harm because it

4

would expose otherwise secret information about the functionality of Symantec’s products to

5

competitors. Id. ¶ 13. The Court has reviewed the materials and concludes that the public

6

exposure of the materials could subject Symantec to “undue burden or expense,” and that sealing

7

is therefore appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c).

8

III.

9

CONCLUSION
Symantec’s motion to seal is GRANTED. The responsive claims construction brief, and

exhibit 16 thereto, shall be e-filed under seal in accordance with the procedures outlined in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

FAQs on the ECF website.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: October 31, 2013

14
15

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3